When new genes emerge in the population (read my previous posts about how this is possible, you retard),

NS does not create new genes it only passes them on

It is the process by which [b]heritable[b] traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

Well I agree with your statement that NS is not responsible for new genes given that NS has nothing to do with mutation rates or any other mechanism by which DNA is altered. I never actually stated at all that NS was itself generating new genes. To argue that NS can't generate new species is absolutely ridiculous. Even if NS wasn't a factor in evolution, the accumulation of random mutations itself will change the genetic makeup of a population (in this case, for the worst since the harmful genes aren't eliminated) and over time, the descendant population of that species will be genetically different from the original species and will be classified as a new species.

Well I agree with your statement that NS is not responsible for new genes given that NS has nothing to do with mutation rates or any other mechanism by which DNA is altered.

Even if NS wasn't a factor in evolution, the accumulation of random mutations itself will change the genetic makeup of a population (in this case, for the worst since the harmful genes aren't eliminated) and over time, the descendant population of that species will be genetically different from the original species and will be classified as a new species.

this all seems like a capitualtion to deans point of view

you agree that NS cant generate new genes - how come Sophyclese saw that all those post back and you didnot till now

if NS cannt generate new genes then thus it cant generate new species

well that agrees withs Sophyclese wrote:- so wipe the smirk of your face canolon

NS does not allow the increase of genetic information so as to creatre a new generation of species.

NS is only about the passing on of genes already present it has nothing to do with the generation of new genesNS has nothing to do with random mutationsso NS from your own admission cant generate new species ie which has new triats/genes

if there is speciation then NS is wrong as it cannot generate new species

NS has nothing to do with the origin of species ie with new genes/traits -you have admitted NS does not generate new genes thus it cant generate new species

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present traitsas you say

Wow gamila. You're like Fox news with your narrow interpretation of basically what people say. If you had read any of my sentences and managed to comprehend them (you fail miserably at this), you would realize that what you think I wrote is the exact opposite of what I actually meant. Quoting a complete sentence of mines and then an obviously wrong interpretation brings a smile to my face. My friends have been getting a kick out of reading your responses. NS doesn't have anything to do with the mechanism for the creation of new genes but it has everything to do with the emergence of new species. Are you sure you understand that NS is just a selection force? Just because it doesn't make new genes doesn't mean it can't bring about new species.

Your persistence with quoting a moron like Sophyclese brings one question to mind. Who is the bigger retard? The one who writes that because NS isn't directly responsible for new genes that it can't generate new species or the one who believes it and actually uses it to support his own stupid point? I'm leaning towards the latter. By the way, you spelled capitulation wrong and I'm pretty sure you have no idea what it meant. Either that or you can't comprehend complex sentences.

I'm going to state the obvious point I made in all my posts and I'm gonna put it in all caps so it attracts your eye. NATURAL SELECTION GENERATES NEW SPECIES!! (Direct counter to Dean's argument) IT DOES NOT GENERATE NEW GENES BUT IT SELECTS FOR NEW HELPFUL ONES AND THAT RESULTS IN NEW SPECIES GIVEN ENOUGH TIME.

If you reiterate the same exact retarded argument that NS isn't making new genes and thus NS can't be responsible for new species, it would be very unreasonable but still more reasonable than your argument to conclude that you and Dean are having a sexual relationship and that you enjoy putting his dick in your mouth.

P.S. I am smirking. I'm completely amazed at how badly the primary education system fails in the US.

Sophyclese wrote:I must indefinietly agree: NS is a completely disprooven theory.I must say that you could disproove evolution just off of your second reason. NS does not allow the increase of genetic information so as to creatre a new generation of species. If so, where would the genetic information come from to advance a species so as to make it better? I mean, genetic information cannot just pop out of the blue by chance!!!

Here is the person gamila keeps using to support his "great" point (Quotation marks indicate sarcasm). I actually quoted his whole post so people can read it in context. His conclusion that NS cannot lead to new species is based on his ignorance of how new genetic information is generated. This is evident by him asking where new genetic information comes from. To answer his question, it does pop out of the blue by chance. The earliest functional genes such as those for protein transcription, membrane assembly, polymerases, energy metabolism all came about as random chance. The more recent genes in evolutionary time are more likely to be from a result of gene duplication and then extensive mutations to the duplicated copies. Either way, chance is the mechanism by which new genes are created.

I'm positive that if he read my posts on where new genetic information comes from (assuming he can comprehend better than gamila), he would come to understand that NS is a factor in the generation of new species. I'm going to write it in caps again just for gamila. NS IS A FACTOR IN THE GENERATION OF NEW SPECIES.

" It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism "

"Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species. A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them onNS is all about the transmission of already acquired traitsif evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation "

Natural Selection is not responsible for new genes there fore natural selection is wrong as an evolutionary theory for the generation/origin of new species as colin leslie dean has shown

NS does not generate new genes it only passes already present genes onthus NS is wrong as an evolutionary theory for the origin of new species ie new genes/traits

Wow gamila you are a moron. The flaw with your argument is that you insist on natural selection being false because it doesn't generate new genes. NS has always been stated as the method that new species are generated independent of the fact that it's not responsible for the creation of new genes. Modern scientists have never asserted that NS was ever responsible for the creation of new genes; it's just a selection force. It must be hard to be an uneducated failure in society. I would leave you alone but it's dangerous to let morons spread false ideas.

If you really want to prove that evolution isn't a valid theory, then attacking natural selection is a terrible way to go about it. There are so many examples of natural selection being a factor in the progression of many species existing today that disproving natural selection is an impossible task. By the way, saying it doesn't generate new genes doesn't disprove it at all. The emergence of new genes is not a defining characteristic of NS because it doesn't rely on new genes to create new species; just a net change in population phenotype and enough random mutations to genetically differentiate it from the original population that existed millions of years earlier.

The art of debate is too complex for an ignorant failure like you gamila. You need the tact and education to counter any points I make with valid arguments, not half-assed conclusions I already countered too easily. You should consider more time training to be a burger-flipper at McDonalds. Being a man-whore to Dean isn't a career despite how good he makes you feel. LOL

. NS has always been stated as the method that new species are generated independent of the fact that it's not responsible for the creation of new genes.

so they have been wrong -for over 150 years no one has had seen the logical/definitional flaw untill now

it has taken a nobody -who according to you cant write and has no qualifications- to show the simple logical flaw in their own definitionyou all know the in and out of the human genomeyou are all so cleaver you can clone sheepbut you all not bright enough to seethe logic is very simple

new species have new genes/traitsif NS does not generate new genesthenNS cant generate new species

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new /genestraits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present genes/traits

"Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species . A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation "

We are definitely not wrong. The "logic" that because NS can't generate new genes, it cannot generate new species is FLAWED. You say it is simple but when in reality, it is wrong. Just plain and simple wrong. If you need evidence about why it is wrong, just read all my other posts. I've countered your "simple logic" about five different ways now yet you insist on remaining ignorant. Natural selection doesn't need the emergence of new genes to pick the most fit individual. It exerts its effects on individuals in a population based on their individual variation. For example you and I are members of the same species which I reluctantly admit, yet our individual differences is what makes me vastly genetically superior blessed with intelligence and good looks which led to a high-paying job and my pick of the best mates. For you who stubbornly refuses to learn, losing the genetic lottery has resulted in being the laughingstock at my lab and my friends as well as the multitude of problems that you encounter in your life.

If you and I are the progenitors of two future species a million years from now, my descendants would be the ones to replace the homo sapien species we belong to and your descendants would be the servants to mines provided my descendants didn't exterminate yours on a whim.

If you and I are the progenitors of two future species a million years from now, my descendants would be the ones to replace the homo sapien species we belong to and your descendants would be the servants to mines provided my descendants didn't exterminate yours on a whim.

Well that is just not nice, and slavery is just wrong. I do not agree with Gamila but some of your comments are getting out of line, especially the one about the US education system.

Yes, you're right that natural selection does not and cannot explain the creation of new variation. Natural selection is about selecting between existing variation. But natural selection is only one part of the theory of evolution. New species are created when there is a source of variation (mutation), continuous selection on that variation (natural selection), and finally splitting into different species (speciation). Natural selection is the process that biologists think causes selection. The author seems to think that natural selection is the entire theory of evolution. It is not, which is why natural selection on its own can't explain evolution. If natural selection were the whole theory it wouldn't be possible to explain how new species are created. Darwin was in this position himself, since he had no knowledge of genetics and mutation. He thought natural selection took place, but didn't know where the variation in organisms came from.

The theory of evolution is based on parts of many disciplines: genetics, biology, biochemistry, paleontology, geography, geology, chemistry, physics. Natural selection is only one part of the theory. Point 4) makes this mistake. New species are created by mutation, natural selection and speciation. Not just genetics, or natural selection, on their own.

Yes, you're right that natural selection does not and cannot explain the creation of new variation. Natural selection is about selecting between existing variation. The author seems to think that natural selection is the entire theory of evolution. It is not

so is the smirk wiped of your face yet canolon

and you

MichaelXY

I do not agree with Gamila

we see you are now gone quite who do you agree with now-waiting to see where the consensus is first i bet

and MolecularBioFTW you must look a bit silly now with this statement

NS has always been stated as the method that new species are generated independent of the fact that it's not responsible for the creation of new genes.

why has it taken you all 6 momths of posts to finally see and admitt thisas colin leslie dean has said natural selection is wrong as it cannot generate new species -it is only about passing on traits/genes already present - as pauljgrayson notes above

Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species. A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them onNS is all about the transmission of already acquired traitsif evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation "

Darwin was in this position himself, since he had no knowledge of genetics and mutation. He thought natural selection took place, but didn't know where the variation in organisms came from.

Darwin was wronghis book was calledOn the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,and natural selection is not responsible for the generation of new species